[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
mrex at sap.com
Fri Jul 6 09:17:23 PDT 2012
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Martin Rex wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Martin Rex wrote:
>>>> Moving away from plain ASCII is magnitudes easier than moving away from
>>>> XML, which is why ASCII is a pretty good choice in the first place.
>>> If moving away from plain ASCII was "easy", it would have happened already.
>> rfcmarkup, which produces one HTMLized version of ASCII TXT RFCs and IDs
>> accessible under http://tools.ietf.org/html/
>> did not need months of mailing list discussions to come into existence,
>> and did not require I-D authors to dump their existing authoring tools.
> ...and it does only a subset of what we're trying to get.
> Yes, you've told us numerous times that it would be easy to extend to do
> more, but so far nobody has done that.
That it hasn't been done is a clear proof that rendering RFCs / I-Ds
on Smartphones is just a Scapegoat. If someone really cared about it,
he could easily have shipped several alternative solutions to this
problem by now, as a frontend-side reformatting ("app"), or as
an alternative rfcmarkup that provides floatable HTML, rather than
spending time on this discussion.
More information about the rfc-interest